• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Using Technology in the Shed (DB forum Thread)

#21
I use a Yamaha QY70 sequencer, home minidisc deck, and portable minidisc player/recorder which allows me to do various things...

Drum loops - I can program them in and play them at any speed. What I sometimes do is record to minidisc, 15 minutes worth of the drum track at 3 different tempos. I have a home minidisc deck so I use that for playback and then record myself and the drum track using my portable minidisc player.

Chord progressions - I'll program, I vi ii V7, ii V7 i, ii V7 I, in all twelve keys and then record that to a minidisc and attempt to solo over the progressions as the keys change. I'll also program in changes to tunes I want to work on and walk over the changes and solo over them as well.

Simandl Excercises - Again I'll program in the excercise and play along with it to work on my intonation and my timing.

Single note drones = I'll record 3 minutes of all 12 pitches so that I can play two octave scales along with them.
 
#22
Hmmmm... I had a feeling my remarks would be taken the wrong way, but at the time I couldn't think of a better way of putting them. Perhaps a better thought out version of my point is this - every time I do delve into recording, etc. I find I'm still confronted with the same issues I was already aware of before the recording with little to no new light shed. Perhaps there's something I'm doing wrong, but I will say that this wasn't always the case and once upon a time I was mortified by the tone and intonation I heard when I recorded myself. Perhaps I've done it enough to develop my own sense of objectivity, but that was acheived by a $20 cassette recorder. I guess I'm simply perplexed as to why y'all would feel the need to go further than that.

As far as "need" goes, it must be serving *some* need, if only that of self-amusement, or why would you do it? If no need is being met, then I'm even more perplexed. I'm not trying to be critical, or to talk about "good" vs. "bad" here - if what you're doing works for you, that's fine. But I am honestly curious as to why there is no simpler way, and if there is a simpler way, why not use that instead?
 
#23
Originally posted by Shlomobaruch
Hmmmm... I had a feeling my remarks would be taken the wrong way, but at the time I couldn't think of a better way of putting them. Perhaps a better thought out version of my point is this - every time I do delve into recording, etc. I find I'm still confronted with the same issues I was already aware of before the recording with little to no new light shed. Perhaps there's something I'm doing wrong, but I will say that this wasn't always the case and once upon a time I was mortified by the tone and intonation I heard when I recorded myself. Perhaps I've done it enough to develop my own sense of objectivity, but that was acheived by a $20 cassette recorder. I guess I'm simply perplexed as to why y'all would feel the need to go further than that.

In my case it's because I already own the equipment anyway for recording purposes, and because I firmly believe that I can learn more about my playing and be more objective when I'm not actually playing than when I am. Also, when listening back I have the time to take notes of specific things to work on. A $20 tape recorder with a built in mic is fine, but it's not going to tell me what my bass is going to sound like when I actually get it into the studio. As far as intonation goes, I find that playing along with reference pitches (either recorded note-for-note "tracks" or drone pitches like Phil mentioned) allows me to make more intricate centering adjustments in real time than when I don't use them....I also notice that after I've practiced with these reference pitches, I'm able to correct my bad intonation tendencies more before they happen because by listening back to the results I'm able to quantify the types of errors that I most consistently make.

As far as "need" goes, it must be serving *some* need, if only that of self-amusement, or why would you do it? If no need is being met, then I'm even more perplexed. I'm not trying to be critical, or to talk about "good" vs. "bad" here - if what you're doing works for you, that's fine. But I am honestly curious as to why there is no simpler way, and if there is a simpler way, why not use that instead?
Click to expand...


If you'll tell me a simpler way to play with Kenny Barron one week, Fred Hersch the next, Lynne Arriale the following week and Keith Jarrett the week after that, I'll jump on it in a heartbeat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlenParks
#24
Originally posted by Shlomobaruch


I guess I'm simply perplexed as to why y'all would feel the need to go further than that.
Click to expand...

I think having a keyboard is essential to being able to really hear chord changes and it also really helps me being able to loop chord sequences indefinitely on my microcompser - so if it is an unusual sequence it really helps me to get it fixed in my head, if I want to play a solo over it - I can play over it as many times as it takes; very easily.
 
#26
Somewhat related topic:

I've been fooling around with a bunch of different software for transcribing tunes. Slow-down, change pitch, loop, etc. I've probably tried ten or so in the last month.

I found one piece of software that passed my test: I was using it to do its thing just moments after installing it. Everything working easily and plainly laid out. Shareware, the price won't kill ya.

A big thumbs up for: Transcribe, by Seventh String Software. I have absolutely nothing to do with those cats. I just thought I'd lay down the recommendation.
 
#27
regarding cutting out bass frequencies in songs:

i've got a 2 channel, 7 band equalizer hooked up to my stereo. any suggestions on what frequences to cut/boost to eliminate the bass, and for transcribing what to cut/boost to hear the bass better?
obviously i know the lows are where the bass is and the high is where its not but perhaps someone knows something about this. cause usually it just sounds like crap. turn down all the low, then i have to turn up the volume, then the treble breaks my ears!
thanks
 
#28
Originally posted by aaguudis
regarding cutting out bass frequencies in songs:

i've got a 2 channel, 7 band equalizer hooked up to my stereo. any suggestions on what frequences to cut/boost to eliminate the bass, and for transcribing what to cut/boost to hear the bass better?
obviously i know the lows are where the bass is and the high is where its not but perhaps someone knows something about this. cause usually it just sounds like crap. turn down all the low, then i have to turn up the volume, then the treble breaks my ears!
thanks
Click to expand...

This last part is completely true - when you remove the low frequencies, the resulting sound is annoying. As far as which frequencies to boost or cut, a lot of it depends on how the record was recorded and what register the bassist is playing in. But in general, a boost in the 200hz area will allow you to hear the bass better for transcription purposes.
 
#29
large-720276-image1.jpeg


10 years later, and i thought I'd check in on this thread because I've been getting back into this in a big way. What's funny is that the equipment has all changed, but the process stays largely the same. Here's the new "Starship Enterprise bridge":

attachment.jpg


Plug a nice mic into a preamp and set it in front of the bass, send to the mixer, mix in a great recording via the computer, pull out the bass with an inexpensive graphic EQ (yeah, a multiband parametric would be a lot more surgical, but I just wanna play!), turn off the monitors, plug in the headphones, set the volume, and go. All anybody else in the house hears is the bass, so I can play at a pretty decent level at any hour of the day or night. Hoo-ahh!

The new stereo editing programs are great for creating practice loops as well. Making loops (piano loops for bass practice, bass loops for piano practice) of the 2 or 4 or however many bars of the harmony a tune where I sound a lot worse than on the more standard bits makes the time feel a lot more efficient. The new cheap USB mics like the Samson Invalid Link Removed make it really easy to make a quick recording on a stereo editor on the computer - I use Amadeus pro, but it's basically just a slightly fancier version of Audacity, which is free). The nice thing about doing it that way is that it's easy to save the loop files to a practice folder for use later.

Tonight I was relearning/memorizing tunes from an album I recorded a couple of years ago, so the bassist on the recording that I eliminated with EQ was myself. How weird is that? :D
 

Attachments

  • 330082_10151192270955243_395371024_o.jpg
    330082_10151192270955243_395371024_o.jpg
    117.9 KB · Views: 220
#31
I've got a recording setup that is fairly minimal, but I don't need headphones since my studio is out in the garage. Lately I don't even use the computer, I just use one of several different apps on my iphone to either play along with actual recordings, practice loops, or iRealB charts through my monitors. Something to be said for not having to turn the computer on I guess. Or maybe (probably) I am lazy.
 
#32
Hey chris,
First and foremost I want to say thank you for all your contributions. I find your advice insightful and helpful for getting out of ruts. Especially since I'm new to DB. Do you still record Simandl exercises first, then learn them? Intonation is one of my worst problems. And I'm wondering if this could greatly improve my ear for intonation.
 
#33
The only time I record an entire exercise is when my intonation is horrible on the whole thing (haven't done that for a while, but occasionally i'll recommend it to a student to keep them honest). These days when i'm focusing on intonation, I usually use a drone with super slow practice.

Lerm - good to see you after all this time! I love my music room, but I dream of having it in a sound-treated separate building (like a garage) from the house. Someday...
 
#35
Space Pickle said:
I was about to make a smartass comment about minidiscs before I saw '2003'.
Click to expand...

I still believe that minidisc is the best medium there has been for performers to record their own performances in high quality.

Nothing has come along that does a better job. Most new technology looks for convenience over quality.

Although minisdisc is very easy to use - just stick a good stereo mic in front of a small Jazz ensemble and hit record - you have a very good recording!
 
#36
Bruce Lindfield said:
I still believe that minidisc is the best medium there has been for performers to record their own performances in high quality.

Nothing has come along that does a better job. Most new technology looks for convenience over quality.

Although minisdisc is very easy to use - just stick a good stereo mic in front of a small Jazz ensemble and hit record - you have a very good recording!
Click to expand...

Although I liked minidisc a lot and still actually have a player I can't bring myself to get rid of, I have to say that the new digital recording devices (I have an older Edirol R-09) are much better and more convenient. They are about the size of a cigarette box, have no moving parts, the mics are built in or you can attach a stereo mic through the line in, set the resolution for low MP3 up to full WAV quality, and go. I carry mine around with me in my bass case.
 
#37
But is it actually better sound quality than Mini Disc? I can see the point about convenience - but I never found Mini Disc difficult to use, my recorder is very small and I've seen nothing that would make me switch.

But that's just me, I can see that anybody coming new to the technology would choose something else.
 
#38
I just read through all this thread again and I have changed my views and gear, since I lasted posted - 10 years ago! :p

So at that time, I had a load of gear that I had accumulated when I was playing keyboards/synth in pop/rock bands, some of which was useful - but since taking up acoustic Double Bass and really enjoying the sound of acoustic instruments, I have dumped most of the gear I used to have.

I notice other people mentioning "Band in a Box" and I did switch over to that for a while, as a "tidier" version of what I was using for practicing and dealing with music. I still have it - but don't use it so much and have gone to a non-technological view of practice. ;)
 
#40
Then there's recording capacity and availability of media. I have a Tascam DR-40 which uses widely available SD cards. I think it will work with cards up to 64gb, whereas I believe hi-md topped out at 1gb.

It seems to me that minidisc paved the way developing formats, but the recording media itself was an interim technology which has since been overshadowed by NAND flash.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back